What if the Detroit Lions had drafted JaMarcus Russell?

Part 3 | 0-??

At this point, this exercise seems perhaps a bit ridiculous, maybe even preposterous. So I checked some numbers to see if the simulation actually made any sense.

The real-life Lions went 7-9 in 2007, but had the benefit of two things that these Russell-led Lions don’t: a quarterback who wasn’t one of the worst in NFL history and a rookie receiver who would become one of the best in NFL history.

Jon Kitna, the Lions’ real starter, wasn’t a great passer by any means. In 2007 he threw more interceptions (20) than touchdowns (18), although Football Outsiders calls him one of the unluckiest quarterbacks of the era, noting that a significant number of his picks weren’t his fault. Kitna did throw for over 4,000 yards and a not-terrible 6.3 adjusted yards per attempt (AY/A) in 2007.

Russell barely played in 2007 at all, not seeing extended action until week 15. In that game plus his lone start in week 17, Russell completed 30 of 54 passes and averaged 154 yards, throwing one touchdown and four interceptions. The Raiders, led by Josh McCown for most of the season, ended up 4-12.

It took Russell nearly twice as many games over a three-year career to achieve numbers resembling Kitna’s. Russell threw for just over 4,000 yards in his career and his touchdown-to-interception ratio (18:23) is pretty close to Kitna’s, but it took Russell 31 games with 25 starts to get there. Even if we factor out games he did not start, Russell averaged only about 163 passing yards per game in his career (with an abysmal 3.7 AY/A) and that was after sitting for a season on the bench.

Assuming Russell was thrown into an offense from day one whose best players were Roy Williams and Kevin Jones, his numbers might just have been this bad, even worse than the numbers he actually ended up posting.

In any case, the 2007 Lions would have been objectively terrible without a decent quarterback and Calvin Johnson. Let’s see how far this goes.

Russell: 7/30, 88 yards, two interceptions

Russell: 11/21, 141 yards, one touchdown

Russell finally had his first objectively positive game of the season, completing over 50% of his passes and throwing for a season-high in yards while not throwing any interceptions. The Lions jumped out to a 10-0 lead but 17 fourth-quarter points powered the Giants to a win.

Russell: 3/24, 13 yards, three interceptions

Russell: 8/25, 78 yards, one touchdown, one interception

Russell: 4/22, 39 yards, three interceptions

In three games the Lions conceded 110 points while only picking up 140 passing yards as they ran a gauntlet of three teams that combined for 34 wins in 2007.

Russell: 6/30, 60 yards

5/33, 55 yards, one touchdown, two interceptions

This game was probably the Lions’ best chance for a win, as the Chiefs started Damon Huard and Kolby Smith. Still, Russell couldn’t put it together and the Lions dropped to 0-15.

Russell: 6/25, 123 yards, one touchdown, two interceptions

Remember Craig Nall? He was the Packers’ number-three quarterback in 2007 and the 12-3 Packers, having long ago clinched the division, decided to run him out there in week 17 with Koren Robinson, Ruvell Martin and Bubba Franks to throw to. He threw for three touchdowns.

JaMarcus Russell’s rookie season was one of the worst seasons of all time. His 24.3% completion percentage was the worst of all time among those who threw at least 100 passes in a season. His 35 interceptions tied for second-worst all time. His 1,175 yards on 411 attempts yielded 2.85 yards per attempt, another record.

Is this absurd? Yes. of course it is. But so is existence. Our very presence in the universe and the fact that we can engage with and understand these simulated numbers about a fictional universe separate from our own is its own special kind of absurdity, one that begs to understand the nature of being itself.

We asked for this. We brought this suffering upon ourselves by choosing to collectively imagine this hellscape. We combined the worst quarterback with the worst team, knowing we would get a terrible result, but we did it anyway because we needed to know just how far human suffering could reach.

So, are we doing it again? Of course we are. This is hell. And you aren’t allowed to die in Hell.